| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: October 24 2013 at 11:32 |
 Hercules wrote:
Dean wrote:
I simply point out that when other people make bold subjective claims that the objective science does not support their claims.
|
Now that highlights the difference between us. You are an engineer, I am a scientist. Scientists use observation to gather information and my (and many other peoples') observations tell us that there is a difference in spatial resolution between vinyl and CDs. It may be that some people cannot perceive it, but that does not affect the situation - it has been observed and explanations must be sought as to why some people observe (or believe they observe) this phenomenon.
And to suggest that it cannot exist because the specs don't support it is an engineer's approach which assumes that science is aware of every variable and how it can affect the perception of sound. Just because science cannot explain something does not mean it doesn't exist.
For example, some years ago, a former colleague of mine measured the mass of a star (Eta Carinae if you want to know which one) and concluded that it was over 150 times the Sun's mass. This was a problem; there is an upper limit to star size called the Eddington luminosity limit which is around 125 - 140 times the mass of the Sun for a star like Eta Carinae. Above this limit, stars blow their outer layers off in a monstrous solar wind, so theoretically, a star this big can't exist.
I spent 5 years trying to find a mechanism which would resolve this conundrum (without success) before Eta Carinae was found to be a binary system (two stars, not one). This seemed to solve the problem, but since then, other stars (eg R136a1) have been found which indisputably ARE above the Eddington limit.
So science was saying they couldn't exist, yet they do. And since then, a mechanism has been proposed (not by me, I emphasise) which seems to permit them to.
Conclusion: if science says something can't happen or doesn't exist, improve the science as much as you possibly can before finally passing judgement.
|
What you are talking about there is interpretation of data. With a star the information we gather is based upon the effect of the properties of the star on other things - we cannot physically measure its mass, we base our calculations on the measurements we obtain from the effect that mass has on some other measurable property. As your example shows - if the calculations do no stack up with the hypothesis then the hypothesis is wrong ... my inexpert guess would simply be that like the binary example, the star did not form as a single massive star, but as several smaller ones perhaps (as I said, I'm guessing - since stellar events generally happen over long timescales, we are probably observing this solar-wind mass-shedding as it happens - the stars merged, exceeded the Eddington limit and have been shedding mass ever since).
3D Sound-staging is not measurable so the hypothesis cannot be tested. That's not scientific.
Edited by Dean - October 24 2013 at 12:30
|
|
What?
|
 |
Hercules
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 14 2007
Location: Near York UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7024
|
Posted: October 24 2013 at 11:08 |
Dean wrote:
I simply point out that when other people make bold subjective claims that the objective science does not support their claims.
|
Now that highlights the difference between us. You are an engineer, I am a scientist. Scientists use observation to gather information and my (and many other peoples') observations tell us that there is a difference in spatial resolution between vinyl and CDs. It may be that some people cannot perceive it, but that does not affect the situation - it has been observed and explanations must be sought as to why some people observe (or believe they observe) this phenomenon.
And to suggest that it cannot exist because the specs don't support it is an engineer's approach which assumes that science is aware of every variable and how it can affect the perception of sound. Just because science cannot explain something does not mean it doesn't exist.
For example, some years ago, a former colleague of mine measured the mass of a star (Eta Carinae if you want to know which one) and concluded that it was over 150 times the Sun's mass. This was a problem; there is an upper limit to star size called the Eddington luminosity limit which is around 125 - 140 times the mass of the Sun for a star like Eta Carinae. Above this limit, stars blow their outer layers off in a monstrous solar wind, so theoretically, a star this big can't exist.
I spent 5 years trying to find a mechanism which would resolve this conundrum (without success) before Eta Carinae was found to be a binary system (two stars, not one). This seemed to solve the problem, but since then, other stars (eg R136a1) have been found which indisputably ARE above the Eddington limit.
So science was saying they couldn't exist, yet they do. And since then, a mechanism has been proposed (not by me, I emphasise) which seems to permit them to.
Conclusion: if science says something can't happen or doesn't exist, improve the science as much as you possibly can before finally passing judgement.
|
|
A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life.
|
|
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7870
|
Posted: October 24 2013 at 07:08 |
The.Crimson.King wrote:
Dean wrote:
Trying to muster enough enthusiasm to post replies and failing.
@Dennis - I don't believe that vinyl has any advantage in the spatial/front-to-back imaging, quite the opposite.
Front -to-back imaging is controlled by volume level, EQ and echo - it is essentially monaural so phasing and channel seperation and all that other technical mumbo-jumbo is almost irrelevant. If you think how something sounds in the distance when compared to close up then that is what you would need to mimick in the studio: obviously things further way sound quieter so you turn the level down, lower frequencies do not travel so well so the tone changes to have less bass (EQ) and those remaining higher frequencies bounce off things before they get to you (echo). When mixing a piece of music you want that to be on a more subtle and intimate scale so that you place the listener in the soundstage rather than 500 metres away from it. In practice you want to create some space for each instrument so they are not muddled and muddied by each other - and that's where the "almost irrelevant" from earlier comes into play because the left-to-right imaging can help here. |
For the record, I don't believe that vinyl has any spatial/front-to-back imaging advantages either. My point was that even "if" this was a huge advantage for vinyl - as many hardcore vinyl fans claim - it would be more than offset by the click/pop/scratch noise degradation of the medium  |
Key word here is 'claim.' myself, I have heard no such thing. With ya again here, Dennis. :)
|
|
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
|
The.Crimson.King
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4596
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 14:10 |
Dean wrote:
 yup - I had to replace my copies of Dark Side of the Moon, Tubular Bells and Seventh Wave's Things To Come when I bought my first "good" turntable. |
I ripped through 3 copies of Brain Salad Surgery 
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 14:02 |
yup - I had to replace my copies of Dark Side of the Moon, Tubular Bells and Seventh Wave's Things To Come when I bought my first "good" turntable.
Edited by Dean - October 23 2013 at 14:03
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 13:54 |
Catcher10 wrote:
Dean wrote:
ps:
@José - 25dB channel separation of vinyl is a reality - you cannot improve on that, you can simply accept it. 25dB is aproximately a signal ratio of 1:18 .. this means that for every 18 volts coming out of the left channel 1 volt of that will come out of the right channel and there is nothing you can do about it. If we imagine that your speakers are 18 feet apart then any sound that is panned fully to the left will appear to be coming from the area 1 foot to the right of the left speaker (or there abouts) - which is just fine and nothing to worry about because the accuracy of our direction-finding ability isn't much better than that. |
I am not interested in specs..because who did it, what was the testing environment/equipment...so on. I have seen cartridges that show 28-30dB at 1kHz, the one I currently use is spec at 25dB at 1kHz. I totally understand the theory behind it...I don't question that nor do I ask for more nor do I pay much attention to what CD/Digital claims.....Because as you state our ears/heads can only manage about 20-25dB of separation, so anything more is overkill and you don't experience it anyway, I am perfectly fine with 25dB.....it mates very well with my head  . |
Then we agree. I merely point out that sound placement from vinyl is no better than what we can decern and from a technical perspective cannot be better than can be achieved from CD.
Catcher10 wrote:
Call it what you want spatial separation, panning, echo......Those effects can also be increased/decreased with speaker placement, room acoustics, furniture, flooring....so on. If I were to put my system in someone elses room it may simply sound boring and lifeless or could sound even better..dunno. And to be clear I am not one of those room treatment people..I don't have baffles hanging in my room, I will make no concessions in my room to "better" my audio sound, vinyl or CD.....Maybe they work but I am not interested in trying it. |
Presactly. A point I've made many times over.
Catcher10 wrote:
The only thing I know is what my ears tell me....I have a lot of vinyl that sounds bad and I have a lot of CD that sound bad, IMO a bad CD is much worse than a bad vinyl, because of the detail that CD can expose its almost unlistenable. I can manipulate my tonearm, I can swap out a cartridge for a warmer sounding one or a brighter sounding one or a very neutral sounding one....I can swap out a phono amp and even play with cartridge loading. At least I have options to try and make a bad sounding vinyl tolerable....but with bad CD I press play and pray, that's it, but it will always sound bad. |
I don't believe it is possible to make any bad recording tolerable regardless of what media it was recorded on. If you gain pleasure from tinkering with tonearms and carts then good for you - once I've optimised my setups I find that no further twiddling will make a turd smell like a rose.
Catcher10 wrote:
I have said again, back on page 1-2 that I don't argue that digital is the best recording method. But my only testing method is what my ears tell me in my listening room on my sofa on my system..and I am pretty darn happy!!  |
Good. I'm happy with mine too.
|
|
What?
|
|
The.Crimson.King
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4596
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 13:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
The.Crimson.King
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4596
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 13:49 |
Dean wrote:
Trying to muster enough enthusiasm to post replies and failing.
@Dennis - I don't believe that vinyl has any advantage in the spatial/front-to-back imaging, quite the opposite.
Front -to-back imaging is controlled by volume level, EQ and echo - it is essentially monaural so phasing and channel seperation and all that other technical mumbo-jumbo is almost irrelevant. If you think how something sounds in the distance when compared to close up then that is what you would need to mimick in the studio: obviously things further way sound quieter so you turn the level down, lower frequencies do not travel so well so the tone changes to have less bass (EQ) and those remaining higher frequencies bounce off things before they get to you (echo). When mixing a piece of music you want that to be on a more subtle and intimate scale so that you place the listener in the soundstage rather than 500 metres away from it. In practice you want to create some space for each instrument so they are not muddled and muddied by each other - and that's where the "almost irrelevant" from earlier comes into play because the left-to-right imaging can help here. |
For the record, I don't believe that vinyl has any spatial/front-to-back imaging advantages either. My point was that even "if" this was a huge advantage for vinyl - as many hardcore vinyl fans claim - it would be more than offset by the click/pop/scratch noise degradation of the medium
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 13:35 |
Hercules wrote:
Dean wrote:
Trying to muster enough enthusiasm to post replies and failing.
@Drew - spot on  @Doug - Probably my feelings too
@Dennis - I don't believe that vinyl has any advantage in the spatial/front-to-back imaging, quite the opposite.
Front -to-back imaging is controlled by volume level, EQ and echo - it is essentially monaural so phasing and channel seperation and all that other technical mumbo-jumbo is almost irrelevant. If you think how something sounds in the distance when compared to close up then that is what you would need to mimick in the studio: obviously things further way sound quieter so you turn the level down, lower frequencies do not travel so well so the tone changes to have less bass (EQ) and those remaining higher frequencies bounce off things before they get to you (echo). When mixing a piece of music you want that to be on a more subtle and intimate scale so that you place the listener in the soundstage rather than 500 metres away from it. In practice you want to create some space for each instrument so they are not muddled and muddied by each other - and that's where the "almost irrelevant" from earlier comes into play because the left-to-right imaging can help here. |
Dean, you are clearly far more expert in the digital technology of CDs than I am - my professional expertise was in mathematical/theoretical astrophysics, not electronics/acoustics and my Physics degrees date from the early 70s so are well out of date - but I suggest you actually leave aside the specifications and listen to the evidence of your ears.
For example, on the original recording of Another Night from Moonmadness, on vinyl the drums appear to be coming from well behind the vocals and guitar. On CD, they all appear completely on a line between the speakers. I can't listen to Moonmadness on Cd as the spacy feel of the music is diminished. On Time from DSOM, the clocks appear to be coming from a huge space behind the speakers on vinyl, but on CD - they just sound to be coming from a linear soundstage with no space.
You may not have heard this; if so, it may simply be that your vinyl playback equipment is not up to the level needed. I have heard both a Technics SL 1200 and a Linn LP12 recently and was startled by the very poor soundstaging which was no better than my CD player, but a Nottingham Audio Annalog and my own Pink Triangle Anniversary (which are more sophisticated and upmarket models) wiped the floor with it.
I do not know why vinyl can do this, but my ears tell me it can. And I believe them. |
Drew already answered that specific point :-
stonebeard wrote:
I would probably call it different mixes based on release format, because it's the only option that I think could realistically have that effect. |
And I see no reason to go looking for any other explanation, and certainly won't go looking for it in equipment setups and whether one platter connected to an electric motor can possibly give a better "soundstage" to different platter connected to a different electric motor. As long as we have graduated beyond plastic auto-changer turntables and dynamic "crystal" pickups with a saphire styli then the subjective nuances and subtleties of different set-ups simply do not interest me. You perceive a difference between a Linn LP12 and a Pink Triangle Anniversary, I would wager another listenner would perceive the opposite to be "true", while others would say my Thorens TD160 is better/worse (and no, that's not my only TT, nor is it my preferred TT, it just happens to be the only one I've mentioned in this thread).
You would not countenance this "perception" approach to any other technological, scientific or engineering discipline so why apply it to audio engineering? The Moon and the Sun are the same size in the sky ergo I perceive them to be the same physical size and same spacial distance from Earth, and I don't care what "science" says in the "technical specs" of those celestial bodies... Rigel is brighter than Castor so I perceive it must be close to Earth... Mars is in the constellation of Cancer so since I am an Aries I perceive tomorrow will be a not good day for taking on extra work... Sure they are absurd examples to make a point, but that is the point I am making after all - I do not make any claims that one system or technology is better than any other. I simply point out that when other people make bold subjective claims that the objective science does not support their claims.
|
|
What?
|
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 18006
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 11:11 |
Dean wrote:
ps:
@José - 25dB channel separation of vinyl is a reality - you cannot improve on that, you can simply accept it. 25dB is aproximately a signal ratio of 1:18 .. this means that for every 18 volts coming out of the left channel 1 volt of that will come out of the right channel and there is nothing you can do about it. If we imagine that your speakers are 18 feet apart then any sound that is panned fully to the left will appear to be coming from the area 1 foot to the right of the left speaker (or there abouts) - which is just fine and nothing to worry about because the accuracy of our direction-finding ability isn't much better than that. |
I am not interested in specs..because who did it, what was the testing environment/equipment...so on. I have seen cartridges that show 28-30dB at 1kHz, the one I currently use is spec at 25dB at 1kHz. I totally understand the theory behind it...I don't question that nor do I ask for more nor do I pay much attention to what CD/Digital claims.....Because as you state our ears/heads can only manage about 20-25dB of separation, so anything more is overkill and you don't experience it anyway, I am perfectly fine with 25dB.....it mates very well with my head . Call it what you want spatial separation, panning, echo......Those effects can also be increased/decreased with speaker placement, room acoustics, furniture, flooring....so on. If I were to put my system in someone elses room it may simply sound boring and lifeless or could sound even better..dunno. And to be clear I am not one of those room treatment people..I don't have baffles hanging in my room, I will make no concessions in my room to "better" my audio sound, vinyl or CD.....Maybe they work but I am not interested in trying it. The only thing I know is what my ears tell me....I have a lot of vinyl that sounds bad and I have a lot of CD that sound bad, IMO a bad CD is much worse than a bad vinyl, because of the detail that CD can expose its almost unlistenable. I can manipulate my tonearm, I can swap out a cartridge for a warmer sounding one or a brighter sounding one or a very neutral sounding one....I can swap out a phono amp and even play with cartridge loading. At least I have options to try and make a bad sounding vinyl tolerable....but with bad CD I press play and pray, that's it, but it will always sound bad. I have said again, back on page 1-2 that I don't argue that digital is the best recording method. But my only testing method is what my ears tell me in my listening room on my sofa on my system..and I am pretty darn happy!!
Edited by Catcher10 - October 23 2013 at 11:12
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 09:43 |
progbethyname wrote:
The.Crimson.King wrote:
For me, any advantage vinyl might have in the spatial/front-to-back regions is nullified by the noisy-ness of the medium (pops, clicks, scratches, etc) and the fact that every time you play it, the medium is degraded to some degree. I completed the conversion of my whole collection from vinyl to CD in the mid 90's and have never regretted it for a second. |
Not missing that fence nail huh? Dennis, I do not blame you one bit.
I've now heard and seen both sides to the analogue and Digital coins, and I feel Digital is my prefered sound format....by a long shot actually. |
Mine too
|
|
|
|
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7870
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 08:35 |
The.Crimson.King wrote:
For me, any advantage vinyl might have in the spatial/front-to-back regions is nullified by the noisy-ness of the medium (pops, clicks, scratches, etc) and the fact that every time you play it, the medium is degraded to some degree. I completed the conversion of my whole collection from vinyl to CD in the mid 90's and have never regretted it for a second. |
Not missing that fence nail huh? Dennis, I do not blame you one bit.
I've now heard and seen both sides to the analogue and Digital coins, and I feel Digital is my prefered sound format....by a long shot actually.
|
|
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
|
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7870
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 08:28 |
Surrealist wrote:
If you scan a great master painting digitally?
What do you have?
A digital scan of that paining.
As soon as you digitize music, it's a scan of the work.
Most people don't go to art galleries anymore to see original works. They feel an image of it on their
iphone is sufficient.
Same thing with music.
A book scanned and read digitally is not the same experience as reading
a nice hard bound copy where you have to flip through the pages and you
even smell the book glue.
The age of convenience is steeped in a superficial experience.
|
I agree with some of what you said, but not about the 'Book' point. I don't gotta smell it to feel originality or authenticity of what I am reading. I think that is a little over the top. 
|
|
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
|
Hercules
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 14 2007
Location: Near York UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7024
|
Posted: October 23 2013 at 08:22 |
Dean wrote:
Trying to muster enough enthusiasm to post replies and failing.
@Drew - spot on @Doug - Probably my feelings too
@Dennis - I don't believe that vinyl has any advantage in the spatial/front-to-back imaging, quite the opposite.
Front -to-back imaging is controlled by volume level, EQ and echo - it is essentially monaural so phasing and channel seperation and all that other technical mumbo-jumbo is almost irrelevant. If you think how something sounds in the distance when compared to close up then that is what you would need to mimick in the studio: obviously things further way sound quieter so you turn the level down, lower frequencies do not travel so well so the tone changes to have less bass (EQ) and those remaining higher frequencies bounce off things before they get to you (echo). When mixing a piece of music you want that to be on a more subtle and intimate scale so that you place the listener in the soundstage rather than 500 metres away from it. In practice you want to create some space for each instrument so they are not muddled and muddied by each other - and that's where the "almost irrelevant" from earlier comes into play because the left-to-right imaging can help here. |
Dean, you are clearly far more expert in the digital technology of CDs than I am - my professional expertise was in mathematical/theoretical astrophysics, not electronics/acoustics and my Physics degrees date from the early 70s so are well out of date - but I suggest you actually leave aside the specifications and listen to the evidence of your ears.
For example, on the original recording of Another Night from Moonmadness, on vinyl the drums appear to be coming from well behind the vocals and guitar. On CD, they all appear completely on a line between the speakers. I can't listen to Moonmadness on Cd as the spacy feel of the music is diminished. On Time from DSOM, the clocks appear to be coming from a huge space behind the speakers on vinyl, but on CD - they just sound to be coming from a linear soundstage with no space.
You may not have heard this; if so, it may simply be that your vinyl playback equipment is not up to the level needed. I have heard both a Technics SL 1200 and a Linn LP12 recently and was startled by the very poor soundstaging which was no better than my CD player, but a Nottingham Audio Annalog and my own Pink Triangle Anniversary (which are more sophisticated and upmarket models) wiped the floor with it.
I do not know why vinyl can do this, but my ears tell me it can. And I believe them.
|
|
A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 22 2013 at 18:40 |
ps:
@José - 25dB channel separation of vinyl is a reality - you cannot improve on that, you can simply accept it. 25dB is aproximately a signal ratio of 1:18 .. this means that for every 18 volts coming out of the left channel 1 volt of that will come out of the right channel and there is nothing you can do about it. If we imagine that your speakers are 18 feet apart then any sound that is panned fully to the left will appear to be coming from the area 1 foot to the right of the left speaker (or there abouts) - which is just fine and nothing to worry about because the accuracy of our direction-finding ability isn't much better than that.
Edited by Dean - October 22 2013 at 18:41
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 22 2013 at 18:16 |
Trying to muster enough enthusiasm to post replies and failing.
@Drew - spot on @Doug - Probably my feelings too
@Dennis - I don't believe that vinyl has any advantage in the spatial/front-to-back imaging, quite the opposite.
Front -to-back imaging is controlled by volume level, EQ and echo - it is essentially monaural so phasing and channel seperation and all that other technical mumbo-jumbo is almost irrelevant. If you think how something sounds in the distance when compared to close up then that is what you would need to mimick in the studio: obviously things further way sound quieter so you turn the level down, lower frequencies do not travel so well so the tone changes to have less bass (EQ) and those remaining higher frequencies bounce off things before they get to you (echo). When mixing a piece of music you want that to be on a more subtle and intimate scale so that you place the listener in the soundstage rather than 500 metres away from it. In practice you want to create some space for each instrument so they are not muddled and muddied by each other - and that's where the "almost irrelevant" from earlier comes into play because the left-to-right imaging can help here.
Edited by Dean - October 22 2013 at 18:17
|
|
What?
|
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 18006
|
Posted: October 22 2013 at 13:04 |
moshkito wrote:
Hi,
There are some albums, that I still think sounded way better on vinyl than they ever did on CD, remastered, or pooped on! Some of these were very "sonic" in the work, and the remastering seems to have taken out the "expanse" of the inner vision, by moving the "instruments" around some. All of a sudden you can only see a "studio" and not the scenery in the movie, and this is my number one complaint about some of the remixes that Steven Wilson has done of King Crimson, and anyone else.
It has taken the "humanity" and "vision" out of the music for me!
Thus, it could be said that analog had something going for it, but time, has rendered that process gone and no longer pheasable or used. That is the history of just about anything anyway!
Here are a few:
Tangerine Dream - Phaedra
Seventh Wave - Things to Come
Focus - Moving Waves
King Crimson - In the Court of the Crimson King
Klaus Schulze - Mirage
Robert Schroeder - Floating Music (the LP only as it could play at 33 and 45 !!!!)
|
I purchased the KC Red remastered vinyl version few months ago and I don't like it that much from a musical perspective. There is too much noise reduction going on, its too restrained in places where it should be brighter......Too much of a thick sound. The others I have, ItCOtKC and Lizard, are much nicer....The digital fixing of these abums is too much. It is a tough trade off, removing something always removes something you did not want removed, which can take away from the music, so I can agree with you. Steven Wilson is still doing a fantastic job with his own stuff especially the Raven album on vinyl is simply magical. He did an excellent job with Marco's drumming and also Adam Holzman's keys, the whole sound is a winner! Its clear that at least he is paying attention with great detail how he is recording knowing in his mind the medium will also include vinyl pressings.
|
|
|
|
The.Crimson.King
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4596
|
Posted: October 22 2013 at 11:11 |
|
For me, any advantage vinyl might have in the spatial/front-to-back regions is nullified by the noisy-ness of the medium (pops, clicks, scratches, etc) and the fact that every time you play it, the medium is degraded to some degree. I completed the conversion of my whole collection from vinyl to CD in the mid 90's and have never regretted it for a second.
|
|
|
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20696
|
Posted: October 22 2013 at 10:46 |
I'm no expert in analog or digital sound but I simply don't 'hear' this better quality in vinyl over cd's on the albums named...and I have them in both formats. I grew up with vinyl and still own over 400 pieces but I rarely play the vinyl anymore. Most have a 'muddy' sound imo and can be easily damaged too.
I wonder if this is a 'perceptual. or psychological issue more than any actual quality issue.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18385
|
Posted: October 22 2013 at 09:02 |
octopus-4 wrote:
I would add Atom Heart Mother to the list. |
Absolutely! And tell Roger he is wrong, and out of line putting it down! He's only trying to make sure Ron Geesin doesn't get a dollar! Like he couldn't even afford a nickel or two!
Edited by moshkito - October 22 2013 at 09:03
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
the importance of analog sound in prog
